Saturday, May 03, 2014

A bill that would enable professional sports franchises to compete for sales tax subsidies cleared a major hurdle Friday, winning overwhelming support in the Florida House.

The tax breaks would be available to professional football, basketball, hockey and soccer teams, as well as professional rodeos and NASCAR-sponsored events.

But baseball teams would have to stay on the bench — unless Major League Baseball changes its rules about Cuban baseball players.

Lawmakers added the stipulation in response to media reports that Cuban outfielder Yasiel Puig had been held hostage by human traffickers while trying to establish residency in Mexico in 2012.

Under Major League Baseball rules, players from Cuba must live in another country before they can become free agents. Cuban players who come directly to the United States are forced into the amateur draft, which limits their salaries.

“Major League Baseball [has] inadvertently created a market for human smuggling and the unequal treatment of Cuban baseball players,” said Rep. José Félix Díaz, R-Miami, who introduced the provision with Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach. “We’re not going to give away our taxpayer dollars until this ill is corrected.”

In response, the MLB issued the following statement: “While the sponsors of the bill in Florida blame MLB policies for the role of human smugglers, they do not provide any support for their premise that Cuban players must rely on traffickers to defect to countries other than the U.S. such as Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but would not need the assistance of traffickers to reach U.S. soil.”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Re #193 and Eisenhower: but Eisenhower must have signed off on the covert action to depose Mossadegh in Iran. All sorts of long-term badness flows from that one action.

That he did, and to that you can add the 1954 CIA-backed Guatemalan coup and the Bay of Pigs fiasco, which Eisenhower initiated and Kennedy didn't have the guts to abort.

But what you also have to realize was that the press of the time was overwhelmingly hawkish, particularly when it came to Latin America. About a month before the Cuban missile crisis came to a head, TIME invoked the Monroe Doctrine and called for a "swift, surgical invasion" of Cuba, which I guess they depicted something like this, but in reality may well have begun a third world war. If there was a single major editorial voice that framed the world in anything but the most orthodox cold war terms, it's hard to recall what it would have been.

Saying that things were better for Dems in 2010 is only possible if you hyperfocus on one metric--O's approval rating--and ignore all other information. Furthermore, O's polling numbers probably have more upside than downside as more people discover that the implementation of Obamacare ended up being much more successful than the early coverage indicated. The fact of the matter is that the GCB is a better predictor of the vote than Obama's approval rating.

Democrats hoping improvements in the economy's course and the Affordable Care Act's implementation would level the playing field for November's elections should brace themselves. A nationwide USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll shows the strongest tilt to Republican candidates at this point in a midterm year in at least two decades, including before partisan "waves" in 1994 and 2010 that swept the GOP into power.
. . .
By more than 2-1, 65%-30%, Americans say they want the president elected in 2016 to pursue different policies and programs than the Obama administration, rather than similar ones.

In the 2014 elections, registered voters are inclined to support the Republican candidate over the Democrat in their congressional district by 47%-43%. That 4-percentage-point edge may seem small, but it's notable because Democrats traditionally fare better among registered voters than they do among those who actually cast ballots, especially in low-turnout midterms.
. . .Their lead in the generic congressional ballot is the biggest at this point for Republicans in the past 20 years. In 1994, when the GOP would gain control of the House and Senate, Democrats held a 2-point advantage in the spring of the election year. In 2010, when Republicans would win back the House, the two sides were even.[emphasis added]

On the whole, though I'd prefer there be no prayer at all at government meetings, there's a long and continuous tradition of it, notably in Congress itself. It's often of a very ecumenical variety. But even the most ecumenical of prayers leave people out and offend atheist or agnostic consciences, and even the most ecumenical prayers are uttered by representatives of a given faith. Deciding whether a prayer is sectarian or ecumenical is hairsplitting and in itself a religious opinion. So from my non-lawyerly position I'd reckon this one was decided correctly, though there are doubtless about a million constitutional factors I don't know about.

As for OWS - what would the be the point of concrete suggestions to reduce the influence of wall street and wealth in the US Government? The only Democrats this message appeals to are the Librul Bogey men in Conservatives' Heads. Or maybe Barbra Lee.

If they shouted "more socialism now" would that satisfy you as a concrete suggestion? And IIRC (I never really followed the story)... OWS and the all WTO protests are pretty much the same people. Does the concrete step of "End US Participation in the WTO" carry any weight with you?

Is it really such a leap from the observation of Wealth Inequality to the concrete step of "Redistribute Wealth"? I think we can all agree that "Trickle Down" hasn't quite made the cut in the last 30 years (and I note that this theory -- Supply Side Economics -- was originally expounded right around when WI started skyrocketing)

Oh boy, another one of YC's unskewed polls. I don't know how I would get through the day without one.

What a surprise that the Off Topic Politics thread actually has a link to one of the leading political news stories of the day. Perhaps the fingers-in-their-ears crowd are in denial. Of course, as I've said many times, they are free to link to all the polls that are favorable to the Dems, or anything else, for that matter. But whining about what I post? Really, that's the best you can do?

@208: While I, too, would prefer no prayer, I've not yet figured out why I should be offended. I live places that are something like 80-90% religious with 90-100% of those folks being Protestant Christian. Given that 50%+1 will decide all issues, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be bothered by the prayer. The stuff that follows the prayer, OTOH....

Both operations were successful, and neither were extended in the time they took, or in the use (and waste) of materiel and personnel. No one ever said Eisenhower did nothing, or would do nothing, just that he wasn't likely to get us involved in a Korea, a Vietnam, or an Iraq, things that wasted treasury and a heaps of live. He didn't usually make things worse. He also took action in the Suez crisis--pretty neatly, too. In fact, he took two high profile allies and Israel to the UN and got sanctions. All of these actions were successful. You can say they were short-term solutions, if you like, but sometimes the choices are only between bad and worse. His decisive actions even here, in those three foreign areas, brought stability and time. Some problems may not be entirely avoidable, certainly not on a permanent basis, no matter what you do. He's not responsible for the heedless, maybe irresponsible, poorly thoughtout actions of others that followed.

On the whole, though I'd prefer there be no prayer at all at government meetings, there's a long and continuous tradition of it, notably in Congress itself. It's often of a very ecumenical variety. But even the most ecumenical of prayers leave people out and offend atheist or agnostic consciences, and even the most ecumenical prayers are uttered by representatives of a given faith. Deciding whether a prayer is sectarian or ecumenical is hairsplitting and in itself a religious opinion. So from my non-lawyerly position I'd reckon this one was decided correctly, though there are doubtless about a million constitutional factors I don't know about.

The problem with this decision is that it apparently dropped the requirement that the governing body had to make any kind of effort to diversify the sectarianism. It looks like it was always Jesus Jesus Jesus and the rest of you can just deal with it. I've personally never minded prayers at public functions, since I never pay any attention to them, but I can see in this case why non-Jesus types might be a bit steamed.

My solution to all this BS: A constitutional amendment that required all public gatherings to open with a minute of SILENT meditation, so Christians and Jews and Muslims and Rastas could pray to themselves to their little hearts' content while the rest of us checked the upcoming pitching matchups in peace.

Such articles concentrate on one or two relatively favorable for the GOP polls, ignore recent Dem favorable polls and seem geared to create a misleading impression of either what happened in 2010 or what is happening or not happening) now.

1: Obama's favor-ability polling isn't getting any worse (or better) (And is far far far better than where Dubya's was at the same point in his presidency)
2: Generic Congressional polling has been between GOP +1 to Dems +2 for 5+ months- and that hasn't changed.
3: Senate polling continues to be between the GOP gains 4, 5 or 6 seats (they need 6 to flip the senate, currently RCP has them picking up 4)
4: GOP favorability continues to lag FAR behind both the Dem's and where it was for the GOP at this point in 2010.
5: Back to generic congressional ballot, the GOP lead by pretty healthy margins for all of 2010- except for May and June when the Dems pulled roughly even - the Dems have lead most of 2014- except the GOP has essentially pulled even now.

A couple weeks/a month ago, I thought I saw signs that the polls were breaking Dem, well I was wrong, the polls don't seem to be going anywhere- but the desire to read a story or narrative into random polls results seems to be gaining speed so I guess we are in the media's campaign season

WASHINGTON — Justice Antonin Scalia is known as a consistent and principled defender of free speech rights.

It pained him, he has said, when he voted to strike down a law making flag burning a crime. “If it was up to me, if I were king,” he said, “I would take scruffy, bearded, sandal-wearing idiots who burn the flag, and I would put them in jail.” But the First Amendment stopped him.

That is a powerful example of constitutional principles overcoming personal preferences. But it turns out to be an outlier. In cases raising First Amendment claims, a new study found, Justice Scalia voted to uphold the free speech rights of conservative speakers at more than triple the rate of liberal ones. In 161 cases from 1986, when he joined the court, to 2011, he voted in favor of conservative speakers 65 percent of the time and liberal ones 21 percent.

He is not alone. “While liberal justices are over all more supportive of free speech claims than conservative justices,” the study found, “the votes of both liberal and conservative justices tend to reflect their preferences toward the ideological groupings of the speaker.”

Which is true, but a bit misleading, since the liberal justice with the biggest "liberal" gap (Stevens) had a gap that was slightly less than the conservative justice (O'Connor) with the smallest "conservative" gap. And while the four liberal justices favored "liberal" free speech over "conservative" free speech by relatively narrow margins, Scalia's conservative bias of over 3 to 1 was reflected in the opinions of Roberts, Alito and Thomas, in Alito's case roughly 4 to 1.

The article puts it this way:

Disputes at the margins will, in any event, be overwhelmed by the size of the gaps in many justices’ support for free speech.

The largest one, at least among members of the Supreme Court who cast more than 100 votes in free speech cases since 1953, belongs to Justice Scalia. Justice Clarence Thomas is not far behind. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. have not cast enough votes for a reliable appraisal, but the preliminary data show a similarly significant preference for conservative speakers.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the current court’s most reliable free speech vote, favored conservative speakers by a smaller but still significant margin.

The Roberts court’s more liberal members “present a more complex story,” the study found. All supported free expression more often when the speaker was liberal, but the results were statistically significant only for Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010.

In the case of Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the difference was negligible. And it is too soon to say anything empirically meaningful about Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Hagan herself is a supporter of the health-care law, but she is taking the unusual step of spending money on advertisements designed to appeal to Republican voters skeptical of the measure. The maneuver is apparently intended to undermine enthusiasm in the GOP base for the Republican who is seen as her strongest potential challenger in November.

A risky maneuver since it may lessen enthusiasm for Hagan among Obama fans who brook no criticism of the President, and it also highlights that Hagan is so vulnerable that she chose to adopt this unusual tactic. If this is her best option, that says a lot.

Yes, though of course they weren't monolithic on that as they weren't on anything else. James Madison and George Mason are often invoked as opponents of such prayer. (I know Mason didn't sign the Constitution, but he was a Convention delegate and a very influential thinker among them).

Honestly, on prayer as on guns I tend not to give a #### what people did in 1787. I'm more impressed by the fact that prayer at state meetings is a continuous and living tradition. To ban or restrict it is a radical step. I see Andy's point that today's decision sanctions imbalance. But such imbalance is pervasive and deeply-rooted. Those governing bodies that value diversity (like Congress itself in recent years) will continue to value it. And if your local zoning board has some hardshell chaplain who offends you, stand up and ask that the nice Franciscan or the thoughtful rabbi give the next invocation. Local government in particular is a lot more pliable than people think.

A risky maneuver since it may lessen enthusiasm for Hagan among Obama fans who brook no criticism of the President, and it also highlights that Hagan is so vulnerable that she chose to adopt this unusual tactic. If this is her best option, that says a lot.

According to the model, which was built for The Post by political scientist and Monkey Cage blog author John Sides, Republicans have an 82 percent chance of claiming the six seats they need to move back into the majority.
. . .
Of the two Republican seats seen as potential pickups for Democrats, neither look promising. Republicans have a 94.37 percent chance of holding onto the open Georgia seat and upwards of a 97 percent chance of keeping the Kentucky seat. On the other hand, there are currently eight Democratic-held seats where the Election Lab gives Republicans a better than 50 percent chance of winning. In order, they are:

The problem with this decision is that it apparently dropped the requirement that the governing body had to make any kind of effort to diversify the sectarianism.

Requirement? Don't think that is an accurate statement of prior decisions. In any event, the Court Majority did indicate that the result could be different if it could be shown that the pattern of prayers denigrated, proselytized or betrayed an impermissible governmental purpose. All this decision did is apply the same standard for prayer at local legislative bodies that had previously been applied to Congress and state legislatures.

The problem with this decision is that it apparently dropped the requirement that the governing body had to make any kind of effort to diversify the sectarianism.

Requirement? Don't think that is an accurate statement of prior decisions. In any event, the Court Majority did indicate that the result could be different if it could be shown that the pattern of prayers denigrated, proselytized or betrayed an impermissible governmental purpose. All this decision did is apply the same standard for prayer at local legislative bodies that had previously been applied to Congress and state legislatures.

The town of Greece apparently made no effort to recruit non-Christians to lead the opening prayers for eight years when they were offered exclusively by Christians. Since then, even though according to Justice Kennedy, the town had "tried" to recruit "members of various faiths" to lead the prayers, they still had only two. The lack of results may call the town's effort into question, but again, though I'd much prefer a silent prayer, it's so far down on my list of concerns about organized religion that IMO it's an issue that's barely worth fighting about. I'm much more concerned when the Biblical thumpers try to force their dogma into the nation's textbooks.

GCB is at R+0.6, and was D+0.8 as recently as a couple of days ago. Why create a bogus meta-narrative where none exists? I don't get your motivation. Is it to "tweak the liberals" on the board? All it does is coarsen the discourse and make the board less interesting.

Note that this projection doesn't include GOP wins in what are widely regarded as Toss-Up races in North Carolina and Colorado.

50.49% isn't a toss-up?

Well, my point was that there are a couple more close Senate races that are possible GOP pick-ups. It is also true that one of the Senate races that the Washington Post currently forecasts as a GOP victory is by a very narrow margin. Different point than mine, though.

Quoting from a NY Daily News story. Love how the second sentence starts out:

Donald Sterling is reportedly shopping for lawyers to swat back at the NBA.

The embattled bigot has reached out to several law firms, including Los Angeles-based Glaser Weil, to build a legal bench that can rush to court and cry foul over his lifetime ban and league efforts to force a Clippers sale, TMZ Sports reported Monday.

Someone else alluded to the polling average, and by the time I could follow-up, a more recent poll showed something a little different. Time will tell whether that newer poll is detecting an actual shift (or is more or less accurate) from the earlier polls. However, the pollsters & political writers did most of the touting of the poll's significance. But if anyone wants to pretend it is unimportant, go right ahead.

All it does is coarsen the discourse and make the board less interesting.

Really? Seems to me the epithets & insults crowd are the ones coarsening the dialogue. Perhaps you'll get around to critiquing them some day. Surprising how many people are irritated by substantive posts just because they don't fit their preferred outcome.

Donald Sterling is reportedly shopping for lawyers to swat back at the NBA.

The embattled bigot has reached out to several law firms, including Los Angeles-based Glaser Weil, to build a legal bench that can rush to court and cry foul over his lifetime ban and league efforts to force a Clippers sale, TMZ Sports reported Monday.

So I guess in this case the guy in the ambulance is chasing the lawyer, instead of the other way around.

The point was that #s 215 & 236 suggest there is a Constitutional requirement to diversify the the denominations represented. I don't think the precedents support that.

Well, that's what five justices say, and contrary to what some of the lawyers here have said in numerous threads in the past, the law and the constitution is whatever five justices of the Supreme Court say it is on any given day, so I can't really argue the point. And as I said, in this case I don't really care one way or the other, since it shouldn't be all that hard to tune out a brief invocation.

Really? Seems to me the epithets & insults crowd are the ones coarsening the dialogue.

I do.

Someone else alluded to the polling average, and by the time I could follow-up, a more recent poll showed something a little different. Time will tell whether that newer poll is detecting an actual shift (or is more or less accurate) from the earlier polls. However, the pollsters & political writers did most of the touting of the poll's significance. But if anyone wants to pretend it is unimportant, go right ahead.

Oh please. The same time the USA Today poll was in the field, there were three other polls that showed D+5, D+1 and R+1. Which one did you post? The one that showed R+4. There's only one reason why you posted the poll you did.

Here's a link to one (of many) poll of polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

Spare us all the breathless updates. Creating narrative from randomness is the lowest form of political journalism.

Fair enough. Everyone in America is allowed to own a Brown Bess musket, and a flintlock pistol.

Putting aside that this retort is too clever by half — does anyone believe, e.g., the First Amendment doesn't apply to glossy magazines or the internet? — being allowed to carry a pistol would be a big improvement for people in states like New York and New Jersey, where obtaining a carry permit is about as likely as winning the lottery.

The USA Poll received extensive coverage - it's being discussed in items at other papers and websites. The idea that it can't be discussed unless we also mention all the other polls is absurd. When was this rule made up, and how come it wasn't previously applied? I have linked to RCP Poll averages numerous times, but I don't think I, or any other poster, has to link to them in every post that discusses a poll. If someone wants to attempt to rebut such a post by citing a RCP average, or any other information, have at it.

Shades of the Seven Dwarfs. And mercifully they didn't ask about Santorum or Gingrich or You Betcha.

Obviously it's way to early to say that much about 2016, but the point remains that you can't beat a somebody with a nobody, and right now a big bunch of nobodies is pretty much what the Republicans have.

I'll reiterate what YC said, I don't see the point in him posting any averages at all. Why should he? Is it some kind of mystery to somebody what and why he's posting? And even if it was, so what? Bizarre complaint.

The point was that #s 215 & 236 suggest there is a Constitutional requirement to diversify the the denominations represented. I don't think the precedents support that.

There's no constitutional requirement to allow the unrestricted sell of assault rifles* either. There's just a particularly rich and powerful lobby connected to that position and a highly politicized majority on the bench who prefers those guys donations to the donations of "liberals."

*wherever you may define that term to draw the line; doesn't really matter one way or the other

I'm not following the Yammering Clapper and his incessant poll sniping too closely. Has he moved on from 2014 midterms (where there's a fundamental advantage for the GOP to pick up some seats in both houses) to the 2016 general (where there's no similarly forecastable advantage at all?)

Obviously it's way to early to say that much about 2016, but the point remains that you can't beat a somebody with a nobody, and right now a big bunch of nobodies is pretty much what the Republicans have.

LOL. At least half those "nobodies" have a longer list of accomplishments than Hillary Clinton, whose main "achievement" over the past 20-plus years was "standing by her man," Slick Willie.

It's hilarious how people who bash the Bush family dynasty give Hillary such a free pass. Nobody in modern American politics has ridden someone's coattails like Hillary has ridden Bill's. The State Department's p.r. flack couldn't even name a single Hillary accomplishment at State, but to hear the lefties talk, we shouldn't even bother with an election in 2016 because Hillary is so super-qualified.

Being the wife in a co-equal power relationship with Bill Clinton equals a "free pass" on the hubby's coattails.

Still LOL. Hillary Clinton was First Lady of Arkansas and the First Lady of the U.S., not the co-governor and co-president. Given that Bill treated her like a doormat for decades, Hillary plainly didn't even share "co-equal power" within her marriage.

Being power-hungry and sharing "co-equal power" are two very different things.

Being born George HW Bush's son equals "accomplishment." Interesting.

I never said being George HW Bush's son was an "accomplishment." For someone who so often accuses others of being bad at "reading for comprehension," you're not very good at it yourself.

Obviously it's way to early to say that much about 2016, but the point remains that you can't beat a somebody with a nobody, and right now a big bunch of nobodies is pretty much what the Republicans have.

To give equal measure, I do wonder how ###### we'll be without Clinton running. Although a bit more harrowing, it is rather more interesting.

Still LOL. Hillary Clinton was First Lady of Arkansas and the First Lady of the U.S., not the co-governor and co-president.

Oh fer pete's sake. She was certainly a wilting flower all those years and since, wasn't she. I know being IN government is a horrible sin for conservatives, but I'll take those qualifications in a heartbeat.

Yes, more qualified than Obama.

No, she's a centrist and plenty horrifying to the more liberal left, but to the practical progressives, she'll be the battle I choose. I'm not principled enough to follow the Green Party candidate into the ditch, my apologies.

Still LOL. Hillary Clinton was First Lady of Arkansas and the First Lady of the U.S., not the co-governor and co-president. Given that Bill treated her like a doormat for years, Hillary plainly didn't even share "co-equal power" within her marriage.

Without Hillary, Bill doesn't win those offices. You don't understand power couples very well. They don't operate on silly notions of Protestant gender roles quite like you seem to think is appropriate.

Dubya Bush, on the other hand, was a terrible businessman who failed up at every endeavor, until his father's name got him elected to a governorship and the presidency.

Without Hillary, Bill doesn't win those offices. You don't understand power couples very well.

You're killing me, Sammy. You're killing me.

Hillary has the charisma of a doormat, and when it came to politics, Bill apparently trusted Dick Morris — Dick Morris! — more than he trusted her. Hillary might have saved Bill a time or two by pathetically dutifully "standing by her man," but Gennifer Flowers or one of his countless other floozies could have done that.

Dubya Bush, on the other hand, was a terrible businessman who failed up at every endeavor, until his father's name got him elected to a governorship and the presidency.

Somebody should tell Sammy about Bush's time with the Texas Rangers Baseball Club.

Being the wife in a co-equal power relationship with Bill Clinton equals a "free pass" on the hubby's coattails. Being born George HW Bush's son equals "accomplishment." Interesting.

And yet, when it came time for the presidential election, George HW Bush's son won twice, while the "wife in a co-equal power relationship with Bill Clinton" (what in the hell is that, anyway?) never made it there, having gotten beaten out by an unknown and unaccomplished 47 year old black man in Racist USA.

Not real perceptive, Sam. Bill was the talented politician. Hillary may have had other talents (I presume she was a decent enough lawyer) but she can't measure up to him in politics. And this comes out in her debating, which is decidedly cringeworthy.

Even that deserves an asterisk. Bill Clinton was pretty good at getting himself elected, but at the national level he was a bit of a disaster for his party, costing Democrats their 40-year lock on the House of Representatives in 1994, as well as control of the Senate. Neither chamber was reclaimed during the remainder of Clinton's presidency. And how did Bill campaigning for Hillary work out in 2008?

LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling could score huge tax benefits if the NBA carries through with its threat of forcing him to sell the team.

Sterling, whose Clippers are valued at up to $1 billion, could invoke Section 1033 of the US tax code and avoid paying the $323 million he would have owed on a sale, tax experts say.

The federal tax provision calls for a special allowance for anyone who has “involuntarily converted” assets. This section is usually cited by people who lose property to a natural disaster or under eminent domain.

But there’s a catch.

To completely skate tax-free, a Clippers-less Sterling would have to reinvest all the proceeds into a “like-kind” venture — such as another NBA team, or possibly another sport’s team or entertainment venture — within two years.

To completely skate tax-free, a Clippers-less Sterling would have to reinvest all the proceeds into a “like-kind” venture — such as another NBA team, or possibly another sport’s team or entertainment venture — within two years.

that phenomenon is also at the heart of why republicans continue to lose eminently winnable senate races but remain strong in house races. the more well known a republican becomes, the more they tend to scare the living daylights out of the american electorate. although that may be a function of individual republicans only ever becoming well known for making batshit insane comments, it might also help if they would, you know, not make batshit comments.

case in point, before anyone knew that todd akin didn't think a woman could become pregnant if she wasn't aroused by a man raping her, he was a 6 term congressman. as one of 435 republican candidates for the house, noone really paid any attention to him, but as the senate candidate in a competitive race, that stuff tends to draw a lot more attention.

and it may have even sunk another senate race since richard mourdock decided to borrow akin's gascan and talk about how rape is a gift from god if it results in a pregnancy.

And yet, when it came time for the presidential election, George HW Bush's son won twice, while the "wife in a co-equal power relationship with Bill Clinton" (what in the hell is that, anyway?) never made it there, having gotten beaten out by an unknown and unaccomplished 47 year old black man in Racist USA.

Really? You don't know what a power couple is? And in 2008 Obama was hardly unknown.

Even that deserves an asterisk. Bill Clinton was pretty good at getting himself elected, but at the national level he was a bit of a disaster for his party, costing Democrats their 40-year lock on the House of Representatives in 1994, as well as control of the Senate. Neither chamber was reclaimed during the remainder of Clinton's presidency. And how did Bill campaigning for Hillary work out in 2008?

Bill Clinton is a very talented politician. Too centrist for my taste, but still very good politically. Blaming Bill for the end result of the Southern realignment that began in the 60s is ridiculous. And Barack Obama is one of the better campaigners in recent memory. Losing a hard fought battle against him, especially with the Iraq vote against her, is hardly a disqualifier.

Even that deserves an asterisk. Bill Clinton was pretty good at getting himself elected, but at the national level he was a bit of a disaster for his party, costing Democrats their 40-year lock on the House of Representatives in 1994, as well as control of the Senate. Neither chamber was reclaimed during the remainder of Clinton's presidency.

Have to agree with Clapper here. Clinton was partly responsible for losing the House in '94 and that single event has had terrible repercussions that we are still trying to extricate ourselves from to this day.

Bill Clinton is a very talented politician. Too centrist for my taste, but still very good politically. Blaming Bill for the end result of the Southern realignment that began in the 60s is ridiculous. And Barack Obama is one of the better campaigners in recent memory. Losing a hard fought battle against him, especially with the Iraq vote against her, is hardly a disqualifier.

Boy, I remember those arguments from 2007-2008... Obviously, I was on the side of the Dems losing the House and the Senate under Clinton - but you're right, there were factors beyond Bill's control.

That said, Bill's instincts for his own political survival did, I think, hurt the Dems overall. Like most southern Democrats - he was at best, a lukewarm union guy. Union political power was likewise falling - but NAFTA was a mortal wound that only hastened it. Likewise, there was very little in Clinton's bag for the liberal wing of the party -- indeed, 3rd/New Democrat/Sister Souljah moments -- Clinton quite calculatingly took plenty of shots at the party's left flank to burnish his own centrist credentials to cling to an increasingly smaller share of older, whiter voters that were winnable.

Plenty of liberals have voiced plenty of disappointment with Obama, too, of course -- but I think the scraps to the left from the current administration trump those from the Clinton presidency. From a tone and tenor perspective, like plenty of liberals, I wish Obama would more forcefully make the case for progressive governance -- marshaling examples from Lincoln (Railway/infrastructure, the '62 Homestead Act, etc), Teddy Roosevelt (trust-buasting, square deals), and FDR (an obvious and long list) -- but at minimum, he doesn't go out of his way to buy into the Reagan-esque myth of government being the problem.

I'll have no problem voting for Hillary... I think she's plenty competent and while she's too close to the left/right divide for my tastes, at least she's on the left side of it... but I certainly hope her 2016 campaign doesn't end up being tied to some longing for the 90s.

BOSTON — The death rate in Massachusetts dropped significantly after it adopted mandatory health care coverage in 2006, a study released Monday found, offering evidence that the country’s first experiment with universal coverage — and the model for crucial parts of President Obama’s health care law — has saved lives, health economists say.

The effects of human-induced climate change are being felt in every corner of the United States, scientists reported Tuesday, with water growing scarcer in dry regions, torrential rains increasing in wet regions, heat waves becoming more common and more severe, wildfires growing worse, and forests dying under assault from heat-loving insects.

Such sweeping changes have been caused by an average warming of less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over most land areas of the country in the past century, the scientists found. If greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane continue to escalate at a rapid pace, they said, the warming could conceivably exceed 10 degrees by the end of this century.

“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” the scientists declared in a major new report assessing the situation in the United States.

Dr. Benjamin Sommers, the lead author and a health economist and physician at the Harvard School of Public Health, cautioned that researchers did not have individual data on the 270,000 people who had gained insurance in the state, and could not tell for sure whether it was the expansion that had driven the mortality decline.

Obviously it's way to early to say that much about 2016, but the point remains that you can't beat a somebody with a nobody, and right now a big bunch of nobodies is pretty much what the Republicans have.

LOL. At least half those "nobodies" have a longer list of accomplishments than Hillary Clinton, whose main "achievement" over the past 20-plus years was "standing by her man," Slick Willie.

Unfortunately for you, Joe, those "accomplishments" aren't likely to include the presidency, which is kinda sorta the point. But maybe Cruz or Rubio can sign up a Cuban ballplayer or two and give you some pointers on how to do it.

That said, Bill's instincts for his own political survival did, I think, hurt the Dems overall. Like most southern Democrats - he was at best, a lukewarm union guy. Union political power was likewise falling - but NAFTA was a mortal wound that only hastened it. Likewise, there was very little in Clinton's bag for the liberal wing of the party -- indeed, 3rd/New Democrat/Sister Souljah moments -- Clinton quite calculatingly took plenty of shots at the party's left flank to burnish his own centrist credentials to cling to an increasingly smaller share of older, whiter voters that were winnable.

Mild disagreement. I don't think his policies did much regarding unions per se and I think globalism is largely inevitable (with both good and bad). What I blame Clinton for is the finance laws and other antitrust stuff that was weakened. There was a whole pile of regulation that was stripped away and I think large amounts of that helped lead to the meltdown we have seen in the last decade.

The overall "sell out" to corporate interests has really hurt America. Not that corporations are evil, but they need a counterbalance and with both parties kissing their @$$ that counterbalance is missing.

Boy, I remember those arguments from 2007-2008... Obviously, I was on the side of the Dems losing the House and the Senate under Clinton - but you're right, there were factors beyond Bill's control.

That said, Bill's instincts for his own political survival did, I think, hurt the Dems overall. Like most southern Democrats - he was at best, a lukewarm union guy. Union political power was likewise falling - but NAFTA was a mortal wound that only hastened it. Likewise, there was very little in Clinton's bag for the liberal wing of the party -- indeed, 3rd/New Democrat/Sister Souljah moments -- Clinton quite calculatingly took plenty of shots at the party's left flank to burnish his own centrist credentials to cling to an increasingly smaller share of older, whiter voters that were winnable.

Plenty of liberals have voiced plenty of disappointment with Obama, too, of course -- but I think the scraps to the left from the current administration trump those from the Clinton presidency. From a tone and tenor perspective, like plenty of liberals, I wish Obama would more forcefully make the case for progressive governance -- marshaling examples from Lincoln (Railway/infrastructure, the '62 Homestead Act, etc), Teddy Roosevelt (trust-buasting, square deals), and FDR (an obvious and long list) -- but at minimum, he doesn't go out of his way to buy into the Reagan-esque myth of government being the problem.

I'll have no problem voting for Hillary... I think she's plenty competent and while she's too close to the left/right divide for my tastes, at least she's on the left side of it... but I certainly hope her 2016 campaign doesn't end up being tied to some longing for the 90s.

I agree with this.

Since it's unsatisfactory just to say that, I'll add...

Judging Clinton vis a vis the party depends upon a calculation of how toxic the Democratic brand was in the 1990s. Clinton's view basically was that everyone hated Democrats (far different than his articulation by 2008) and so his only chance to survive was to run against Democrats all the time. If he was accurate, then running against Democrats didn't speed the dissolution of the party and prevented a Republican president.

But if Clinton was wrong, if Democrats were viewed as a normal political party--vaguely unpopular but not poisonous--then his decisions to run (gleefully) against the party's brand play a bigger, even if still marginal, role in explaining the evaporation of congressional Democrats (who could not run around the party's values when their leader said they had no values worth respecting.) And his anti-political message (both parties stink) played a marginal role in encouraging left-affiliated people to look to Nader in 2000. Why should they believe the Democratic Party meant anything? Clinton didn't seem to believe that.

I waffle back and forth on my own judgment, and I don't think anyone can say for sure. And I do think that Clinton has worked to build up a Democratic Party brand since 2004, with great success. I wish he had done so in the 1990s.

Democrats hoped Clinton would be a Reagan. Instead he turned out to be an Eisenhower. But maybe that was all that it was possible to be in that climate.

On unions, I go back and forth on how central Clinton was in this. The Democrats had been purging unions from power in every primary since 1972 (when McGovern ran explicitly as an anti-union candidate and Clinton and Hart were volunteers) through 76 and 80 (when Carter's promise was to purge union party) and 88. The exception was 84 when Mondale beat back Hart. And in 92 Clinton was the explicitly anti-union candidate. My question is not where he stood but rather whether the whole party establishment had become so anti-union that there was no gap between Clinton and anyone else (except Gephardt who sat it out.) Was there any credible Democrat who would have opposed NAFTA? And was labor and industrial policy doomed even before NAFTA? Those are close calls, to my mind. I dislike Clinton's position but don't want to overrate its influence. Now, Carter, that's a different story. That is someone who truly fired missiles into U.S. industrial policy, and had the most effective anti-union agenda in 20th century history. Next to him, Coolidge was a piker.

What about the Clinton Health Care proposal? That was fairly left-wing. People forget about it. The debacle with that also had something to do with that 1994 election debacle. And it was after that, that Clinton became more centrist in domestic policies--with NAFTA (remember Al Gore humiliating Ross Perot on CNN?) and with going along with welfare reform. As I remember it, anyway.

The big policy tragedies of the 1990's were finance deregulation (Glass-Steagal repeal etc.) and gobalization/free-trade. Those have been the big drivers shifting wealth from labor to capital. Excessive illegal immigration is a 3rd, smaller, driver.

It seems like both parties share blame equally, as both were enthusiastic cheerleaders of all those ideas, which makes sense given they were bought and paid for by the same interests.

Clinton's view basically was that everyone hated Democrats (far different than his articulation by 2008) and so his only chance to survive was to run against Democrats all the time. If he was accurate, then running against Democrats didn't speed the dissolution of the party and prevented a Republican president.

But if Clinton was wrong, if Democrats were viewed as a normal political party--vaguely unpopular but not poisonous

I think he was wrong on the long term trend, but it worked for him. In retrospect I think Team Blue was hit by the realignment of Southern states. Large chunks of the electorate were realigning (Southern conservative Democrats and moderate northeastern Republicans used to exist, in large numbers), and trying to cobble together a win from that landscape is tricky. Things are much more stable(partisan wise) now than then.

What about the Clinton Health Care proposal? That was fairly left-wing. People forget about it. The debacle also had something to do with that 1994 election debacle.

Whether or not you want to swallow the Harry and Louise BS that the Clinton Health Care proposal was "left wing", there's no question that Hillary's heavy handed and tone deaf promotion of it was perhaps the major factor in the 1994 Democratic debacle. If anyone's "forgotten" that, it's more likely they just weren't around at the time to have noticed it in the first place.

Whether or not you want to swallow the Harry and Louise BS that the Clinton Health Care proposal was "left wing", there's no question that Hillary's heavy handed and tone deaf promotion of it was perhaps the major factor in the 1994 Democratic debacle. If anyone's "forgotten" that, it's more likely they just weren't around at the time to have noticed it in the first place.

I think this is true. It is possible that nothing would have worked, that once Republicans decided to close ranks, the Democrats never could have held themselves together. But certainly Hillary's dealing with Congress made it much easier for congressional Democrats to walk away. And inspired Obama's determination to let Congress drive the creation of the ACA

Well, no one here seems to be trying to keep the memory green. Every time the subject of the Clintons comes up, their politics and effect on the '94 election, this gets no mention, or is glossed over. Whether it was sufficently left wing for some tastes, it was a policy proposal that hit conservatives just like Obama's ACA did, and Hilary's ham-handedness play a definite role in that 1994 debacle.

LOL. At least half those "nobodies" have a longer list of accomplishments than Hillary Clinton, whose main "achievement" over the past 20-plus years was "standing by her man," Slick Willie.

Unfortunately for you, Joe, those "accomplishments" aren't likely to include the presidency, which is kinda sorta the point. But maybe Cruz or Rubio can sign up a Cuban ballplayer or two and give you some pointers on how to do it.

Wait, wait, wait...

Hillary Clinton's resume is being sold quite a bit short if anyone thinks Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Rand Paul come anywhere close... She's been Secretary of State, Senator from New York, on the board of directors of the largest company in the world (something she certainly doesn't brag about to Democrats), first or only (I forget) female faculty member at Arkansas school of law, honors student and first student commencement speaker at Wellesly, Yale Law, and worked at pretty prestigious, albeit somewhat radical California law firm.

In fact, you could add Rubio + Cruz + Paul and maybe you've got an equal resume... Cruz's educational chops match Clinton's... I suppose Rubio+Cruz+Paul would equate her government experience... and I guess Rand Paul is a self-certified ophthalmologist... Oh, and I suppose both Cruz and Paul have rather (in)famous crank dads like Hillary has a rather (in)famous lecherous husband...

She has a cadre of ideologues that will go to the wall for her. That's important, but she doesn't really have a feel for politics--certainly not like her husband or even the current president. Presidential politics are the epitome of cut throat. Many frontrunners have crashed and burned--indeed, it's probably more the case than not. You have to be quick and deft (and lucky).

She's been Secretary of State, Senator from New York, on the board of directors of the largest company in the world (something she certainly doesn't brag about to Democrats), first or only (I forget) female faculty member at Arkansas school of law, honors student and first student commencement speaker at Wellesly, Yale Law, and worked at pretty prestigious, albeit somewhat radical California law firm.

I think being the spouse of a governor and two term president also counts for something, if only knowing your way around politics. And "resume" is dramatically overrated for presidents. Once you pass a minimum threshold of knowledge and experience (a bar HRC vaults over), character, organization ability, leadership and so on play a much larger role in one's success than resume.

And yet, when it came time for the presidential election, George HW Bush's son won twice, while the "wife in a co-equal power relationship with Bill Clinton" (what in the hell is that, anyway?) never made it there, having gotten beaten out by an unknown and unaccomplished 47 year old black man in Racist USA.

Really? You don't know what a power couple is?

Yeah, but typically I go by the technical term: "rich people."

Hillary was not "co-equal" to Bill -- he was the one winning the elections -- and this isn't a qualification for president anyway, certainly not when compared to George Bush the younger, who actually won two presidential elections (plus one for governor, as opposed to Hillary taking over for a long time Democrat in the Senate from an ultra-liberal state and then getting appointed to the do-nothing job of Secretary of State).

She has a cadre of ideologues that will go to the wall for her. That's important, but she doesn't really have a feel for politics--certainly not like her husband or even the current president. Presidential politics are the epitome of cut throat. Many frontrunners have crashed and burned--indeed, it's probably more the case than not. You have to be quick and deft (and lucky).

I agree that a good political touch is a talent and that it is not among Hillary's best attributes.

I don't think she has a "cadre of ideologues" around her. I wish she did! I think she has a cadre, perhaps, but of loyalists, some of whom are utterly mainstream Democrats, some of whom are moderates who see themselves as to the center of the party, and most of whom seem to be the classic Clinton social-liberal, economic-conservative types.

most of whom seem to be the classic Clinton social-liberal, economic-conservative types

That is an ideology though.

Yeah, but typically I go by the technical term: "rich people."

So Donald Sterling is more powerful than Barack Obama, because he has more money? While money and power and transferable to a degree, equating money and power totally and assigning HRC to being "some rich guy's wife" might make you feel better, but is not reality.

As I said though, resume is way overrated and HRC passes any rational bar for experience.

I'll have no problem voting for Hillary... I think she's plenty competent and while she's too close to the left/right divide for my tastes, at least she's on the left side of it... but I certainly hope her 2016 campaign doesn't end up being tied to some longing for the 90s.

I have little doubt she'd be a terrible president. I disagree with Obama on most issues but I'll say this for him: he got his socialist agenda passed, via Obamacare.

But at least now we can put to rest the myth of "the Clinton Machine" helping her in a presidential campaign.

Well, we certainly saw the impact of global warming in the northeast this year, with frigid temperatures throughout a long winter.

Yes, Ray. You did. While you are snarking here in an attempt to be ironic, your ignorance of the facts actually leads you to write a true statement.

Due to global warming we have seen massive ice cap losses in the Arctic.

Due to ice cap losses in the Arctic, temperatures in the far north are generally higher than normal. (Alaska had a heat wave while you were freezing this winter.)

The high temps in the far north generates high atmosphere weather patterns that distabilize the jet stream, leading to a wobbly oscillation rather than the standard jet stream we are accustom to.

The wobbly oscillation in the jet stream means that while the western band of the US was in massive drought and unnaturally warm weather, the central and eastern US was getting the down spike of the oscillating jet stream, and arctic temps were dropping much lower than normal in that region.

Elsewhere across the globe, Australia experienced a massive heat wave and the Earth as a whole continued to warm apace.

You may note, in the future, that we call it "climate change" for a reason, and notably that when we do refer to global warming, we do not call it "Northeastern United States where Ray lives warming."

The idea that it can't be discussed unless we also mention all the other polls is absurd.

the problem with your polling posts is that you post and discuss polls the way fanboy trolls ruin MVP/HOF/All star game threads by talking up their favorite player and denigrating the other's teams'

You discuss political polling the way KEVIN would talk about Redsox prospects- if a guy had good minor league numbers all you would hear would be MLEs and how his guy put up better numbers in A+ at age whatever than some random superstar did, if Kevin's guy did not have good MLEs, then suddenly MLEs were irrelevant because, well just because.

I don't think she has a "cadre of ideologues" around her. I wish she did! I think she has a cadre, perhaps, but of loyalists, some of whom are utterly mainstream Democrats, some of whom are moderates who see themselves as to the center of the party, and most of whom seem to be the classic Clinton social-liberal, economic-conservative types.

I think we forget how incensed those women supporters were that their chosen one was bested, and even that it was by a black man, that did not soothe the savage breast. Remember how they didn't want her to endorse and support Obama? It was supposed to be a woman's time, and they were pissed, and they were virulent, on those grounds alone. That, to me, reeks of ideology.